1. Field of the Invention:
The present invention relates generally to the field of weapons allocation in a battlefield environment and more particularly to methods for battlefield allocation and assignment of counter-weapons against offensive weapons directed at a defending force.
2. Background Discussion:
The effective defending of forces or positions under modern battlefield conditions is almost always a formidable task. Such forces or positions can expect to be attacked by many offensive weapons which have different destructive capabilities, which may be directed from different quarters and which will typically, at any instant in time, have different ranges, altitudes and closing speeds. Typical offensive weapons or weapons carriers encountered by defending forces may vary according to particular battlefield nature, and may include guided, homing and ballistic missiles; attack, bomber and helicopter aircraft; bombs and artillery shells; armored vehicles or ships; torpedoes and submarines. Types of warheads carried by these offensive weapons may be conventional explosives, CBN (chemical, biological, nuclear) and ECM (electronic counter measure) and/or ECCM (electronic counter counter measure) apparatus.
The types of defensive or counter-weapons which may presently be available for use against attack weapons are usually more limited and typically include such expendable weapons as guided and homing missiles, automatic cannon shells and, for naval forces, torpedoes and depth charges. Defensive warhead types include conventional and nuclear explosives as well as ECM and ECCM.
Assuming that the defending force has available a store of counter-weapons, an extremely difficult problem is the allocation and assignment of these counter-weapons against the attack weapons (and weapons carriers) in such a manner that damage to the defending force or position is prevented or is at least minimized. Instant, difficult decisions must thus be made regarding how many of what types of counter-weapons are to be fired when, at each incoming weapon, to achieve the best defensive results.
As a start, a classification or ranking of the incoming weapons as to their destructive threat against the defending force or position is generally made, for example, by the responsible Force Warfare Commander (FWC). This threat classification or ranking is typically based on the FWC's experience with the types of the incoming weapons and upon such additional factors as target prediction and the ranges and closing speeds of the attack weapons. This weapons information may be provided to the FWC from visual and/or electronic determinations. The FWC must next estimate or predict the destructive threat against each type of incoming weapon of each type of available counter-weapon. Based upon such information and also upon additional factors, including the number of counter-weapons available, the projected scope of the present attack, the probability of follow-on attacks and the anticipated counter-weapon resupply situation, the FWC allocates and assigns counter-weapons to the incoming weapons so as, in the FWC's judgment, to minimize the threat of the attack.
It can be appreciated that this difficult decision process involves such difficult questions as whether to fire at a distant attack weapon, thereby reducing the probability of destruction by the counter-weapon but allowing time for one or more "shoot-look" cycles, or whether to wait until the attack weapon is closer, thereby providing a greater probability of destruction of the attack weapon but not permitting sufficient time for a second "shoot-look" cycle. In addition, there are important decisions based upon defense weapons reserves, such as whether to fire one relatively effective counter-weapon or to fire more than one less effective counter-weapon against particular incoming weapons.
Adding to the FWC's decision problems is the fact that most attack situations are extremely fluid, with additional and/or new types of attack weapons being introduced into the attack by the enemy and with prior attack weapons closing in range, changing directions, being destroyed, impacting targets or otherwise being eliminated as threats. Moreover, some targets may be eliminated by attack weapons and others may, if mobile, change their positions. Also, available supplies of some types of counter-weapons may be depleted or may have to be held in reserve. Threat assessments, therefore, require continual updating.
Clearly, for an FWC to be capable of directing an effective defense against a concerted attack, he must not only have an intimate knowledge of the characteristics of all types of attack weapons and available counter-weapons but he must also be skilled in the assessment of the effectiveness of attack weapons against the defending force and of the counter-weapons against the attack weapons. Even with such skills and experience, confusing and rapidly changing battle conditions, as well as the severe stresses to which the FWC is exposed, may adversely affect the FWC's judgement and attack weapons may be allowed to leak through the defense. Moreover, it can by no means be guaranteed that FWC's with the requisite skill and experience will be available in all defense situations or that equally skilled and experienced replacements will be available in the event the FWC is killed or wounded in an attack. Particularly in peacetime, the skill and experience needed by an FWC to effectively direct a defense under actual battle conditions is almost impossible to obtain because the difficulty of simulating an actual battle condition.
Because the directing of an effective defense during battle is ordinarily crucial to the survival of the defending force, and because of the extreme analysis and decisional problems faced by a FWC in effectively allocating and assigning defensive weapons against attack weapons in actual battle situations, it can be appreciated that improvements to present counter-weapon allocation and assignment methods are very much needed and may indeed be crucial to the outcome of any future war.
As described above, much, if not most, of the problems associated with effective counter-weapon allocation and assignment is caused by the vast amount of data relating to the attack and counter-weapons that must be gathered and instantaneously processed by the FWC. The FWC's ability to perform these tasks effectively on a real time basis and under stress may simply be overwhelmed during battle by the sheer magnitude of of the data that must be intelligently correlated to sustain an effective defense.
Although many judgmental decisions of an FWC probably cannot, at present, be entirely eliminated from the counter-weapons allocation and assignment process, the present inventor considers that much of the FWC's task can be systematized and taken over by suitably configured computers to an extent appreciably improving the consistency and effectiveness of the defense. It is to this end that the present invention is directed.